MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES in NATIONAL … · 2020-06-15 · This document will be a key instrument for the implementation of UN-Habitat’s Resolution HSP/HA.1/Res.5 on “Enhancing

URBAN

RURAL

NATIONAL URBAN POLICY GUIDE

MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES in NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES in NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES IN NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES: NATIONAL URBAN POLICY GUIDE

First published in Nairobi in 2020 by UN-HabitatCopyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2020All rights reserved

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)P. O. Box 30030, 00100 Nairobi GPO KENYATel: 254-020-7623120 (Central Office)www.unhabitat.org

Special acknowledgements go to the Governing Council Secretariat in Nairobi, Kenya for reaching out to the member States and encouraging them to take part in the Global Survey on Urban and Territorial Planning. Likewise, special acknowledgements go to UN-Habitat’s member States for actively participating in the first Global Survey on Urban and Territorial Planning carried out in 2016–2017 for the development of this report.

HS/006/20E

Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers of boundaries.Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, the United Nations, or its Member States.

Excerpts may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated.

Acknowledgements Coordinator: Remy SietchipingPrincipal Authors: Grace Githiri, Thomas FosterContributors: Stephanie Loose, Ulrich Graute, John K. Omwamba, Camilo Romero, Eol Chae, Michael Kinyanjui, Frédéric Happi MangouaDesign and Layout: Jean Robert Gatsinzi, Herbert Kimani

I am delighted to introduce this new publication entitled “Mainstreaming

Urban-Rural Linkages in National Urban Policies”. The development

of National Urban Policies is a recommendation of the New Urban

Agenda. UN-Habitat has developed a variety of tools and platforms, as

well as provided technical assistance to Member States for this task. In

alignment with the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development

Goal (SDG) 11, these policies provide strong territorial dimension

to sustainable urbanisation especially with SDG 11.a that calls for

integrated urban, peri-urban and rural planning.

Attention to the dynamic interactions of rural-urban people and places

are is expected to be an integral part of the formulation and application

of a National Urban Policy as directed by the Sustainable Development

Goals and the New Urban Agenda.

Recognising that national and subnational governments are at different

stages with regards to urban policies, UN-Habitat has developed a five-

phase approach to developing a National Urban Policy.

The first part of this Guide provides the rationale and process of bringing

Urban-Rural Linkages into National Urban Policy processes. The second

part addresses how to mainstream policy processes and the third part,

recommendations based on 15 national and subnational experiences in

different regions.

Tools are provided in the appendices to assess their the level of

incorporation in each of the five phases of policy process and possible

recommendations based on sections from the Urban-Rural Linkages:

Guiding Principle and Framework for Action.

This document will be a key instrument for the implementation of

UN-Habitat’s Resolution HSP/HA.1/Res.5 on “Enhancing urban-rural

linkages for sustainable urbanization” adopted during the first UN-

Habitat Assembly in May, 2019. It will also significantly contribute to

the realization of UN-Habitat’s Strategic Plan 2020-2023.

I hope professionals and policymakers working on the urban-rural

policy interface will find this guide useful to support their actions and

decisions.

Foreword

vi MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES IN NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

Table of Contents

URL Mainstreaming in NUP Process...........................................................................................................16

2.1. Support Pillars in Mainstreaming URL in a NUP Process ............................................................................18

2.1.1. Participation ...............................................................................................................................18

2.1.2. Capacity development ..................................................................................................................19

2.1.3. Acupuncture projects ....................................................................................................................21

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................21.1. Background ...................................................................................................................................31.2. Rationale for URL .............................................................................................................................71.3. URLs in the International Global Frameworks ..........................................................................................81.3.1. URL in the UN-Habitat Agenda ..........................................................................................................91.4. UN-Habitat NUP Process ...................................................................................................................11

1.5. Methodology ................................................................................................................................12

Recommendations for mainstreaming URLs in NUPs .....................................................................................24

Recommendation 1 ..............................................................................................................................24

Recommendation 2 ..............................................................................................................................25

Recommendation 3 ..............................................................................................................................26

Recommendation 4 .............................................................................................................................28

Recommendation 5 .............................................................................................................................30

Recommendation 6 .............................................................................................................................30

Recommendation 7 ..............................................................................................................................31

Recommendation 8 .............................................................................................................................32

Recommendation 9 ..............................................................................................................................33

Recommendation 10 .............................................................................................................................34

Recommendation 11 .............................................................................................................................36

FOREWORD ....................................................................................................................................... V

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................VII

LIST OF BOXES ..................................................................................................................................VIII

LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................... IX

GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................................... X

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ XI

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 38

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 39

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 41

viiMAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES

IN NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

Figure 1 UN-Habitat Strategic Plan 2020-2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 2 NUP Phases and Pillars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 3 Mainstreaming Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

List of Figures

viii MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES IN NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

Box 1 Guiding principles of urban and rural linkages (URL-GP) (include icons) . . . . . . . . . . 4

Box 2 Fields of Action for strengthening URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Box 3 SDGs and Urban-Rural Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Box 4 The New Urban Agenda and Urban-Rural Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Box 5 UN-Habitat Assembly earlier Urban-Rural linkages Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Box 6 UN-Habitat Assembly 2019 Urban-Rural linkages in policy Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . 10

Box 7 NUP Excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Box 8 NUP Excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Box 9 National Urban Policy excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Box 10 National Urban Policy Excerpts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Box 11 Promoting rural finance and financial inclusion in Rural India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Box 12 Estonia Regional Development Strategy 2014-2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Box 13 Indonesia: Empowering Rural Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29



Box 16 PURA Scheme (provision of Urban Amenities in Rural Areas) India . . . . . . . . . . . . 32




Box 20 National Urban Policy Excerpt: Philippines National Urban Housing and Development

Framework (NUDF); 2010, page 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

List of Boxes

ixMAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES


List of Acronyms

NUP National Urban Policy

URL Urban-Rural Linkages

NUA National Urban Agenda

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IGUTP International Guidelines for Urban and Territorial Planning

ITD Integrated Territorial Development

URL-GP Urban Rural Linkages Guding Principles

FfA Framework for Action

x MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES IN NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

International global frameworks: Global normative frameworks that address urban-rural linkages include the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with the SDGs, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC), among others.

Sustainable Development Goals: The SDGs are a central part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development launched to succeed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015 with a first global goal for sustainable cities (SDG 11).

New Urban Agenda: The NUA was the negotiated outcome of the 2016 UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development in Quito, Ecuador (Habitat III) with emphasis on integrated urban and territorial planning and development.

Planet of cities: Global urbanization trends are projected to lead towards a “planet of cities”, as recognized in the 2016 World Cities Report titled Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures, UN-Habitat

International guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning: The IGUTP is a framework for action to promote integrated urban and territorial planning approved by UN-Habitat and incorporated into the New Urban Agenda.

Urban-Rural Linkages: UN-Habitat defines urban-rural linkages (URL) as the spatial flows of products, services and information/expertise between urban and rural areas; mobility and migration between urban and rural areas; ... inclusive investment and finance in both urban and rural areas.

Urban areas: Urban areas or cities are defined as built up and urbanized open spaces and by degree of urbanization according to the UN-Habitat report “What is a City” (2019)

Rural areas: A rural area or countryside is a geographic area that is located outside towns and cities with low population density and small settlements.

Peri-urban areas: Transition zones between urban and rural spaces in which proximity to both urban and rural areas bring social, economic and environmental interactions between urban and rural areas.

Acupuncture projects: Projects that utilize entry points that have a rippling impact upstream and downstream, throughout dynamic and interrelated economic, social or environmental systems.

Quick win projects: Projects that for political, economic or social reasons are more likely to have near term results, the success of which will build into longer term and larger scale results.

Mainstreaming URL in NUPs: Incorporation of urban-rural linkages in the processes, policy and practice of national urban policies and their impact on large, small and intermediate towns and cities.

National Urban Policy: NUPs are a major policy vehicle developed by UN-Habitat to implement the New Urban Agenda (NUA).

Phases of NUPs: The four phases of NUPs are diagnosis, formulation, implementation and monitoring.

Pillars of NUP: The pillars of NUP are participation, capacity development, and acupuncture project.

Glossary

https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/City-Definition-UN-Habitat-1.pdf

xiMAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES


UN-Habitat has been assisting Member States to

develop National Urban Policies (NUPs) as a follow

up to the New Urban Agenda (NUA) which calls

for integrated urban and territorial planning and

development. In the process of formulating NUPs,

however, it has become evident that there are gaps

in guidance for key thematic areas that impact the

efforts of Member States‘ to be inclusive, leaving

no one and no space behind. One of these thematic

areas is urban-rural linkages (URLs). Following

facilitation of a global consensus-building process

convened by UN-Habitat in 2018 to define Urban-

Rural Linkages Guiding Principles (URL-GP) and a

Framework for Action to transcend the urban-rural

divide, this guide addresses both challenges and

opportunities to have effective NUPs when the

dynamic interactions of urban, peri-urban and rural

areas are actively taken into account. Strengthening

URLs requires addressing the connections between

urban and rural poverty, inequity and other challenges

in an integrated approach. Implementation of

global agendas, including the 2030 Agenda (SDGs),

the NUA, the Paris Agreement, and UN-Habitat

General Assembly resolutions, among others, have

lifted the importance of urban-rural linkages in

policies and planning1. Given the complexity of the

intersecting challenges from economic volatility,

severe climate events and increased human mobility,

the localization of the global agendas is a growing

priority -- to enable subnational local and regional

governments to innovate and scale up good practice.

From widespread agreement that URLs are indeed a

significant pathway to implement global normative

policy, it is evident that practical guidance is needed

on just how and what to mainstream in national

policy. Guidance is required to help incorporate

urban-rural linkages in policy and in governance

systems of towns, cities and territories. A country’s

development of NUP is among the indicators for the

implementation of the NUA and of the SDG 11.a.

target, as both call for integrated planning across the

urban-rural continuum.

1 Such recognition has occurred at the global level, for example in a high level event organized in February 2019 by the President of the UN General Assembly, FAO and UN-Habitat, as well as at regional, national and subnational levels.

Summary

This quick guide on mainstreaming urban-rural linkages (URL) in National Urban Policy

(NUP) is comprised of three parts: why mainstream URL in NUP, how to mainstream URL in

NUP and what to recommend for NUP.

PART ONE provides a rationale in answering the

question “why?”. What is the significance of

strengthening URLs and the global agreements that

recognize their importance for example in relation

to SDGs and to the New Urban Agenda. The ten

URL Guiding Principles (URL-GP) and Framework

for Action (FfA) are explained in this guide as a tool

for mainstreaming URL in national policy. The FfA

provides 11 fields for action depending on priority

challenges and policy opportunities. This guide helps

link both guiding principles and actions to strengthen

urban-rural linkages in the context of NUP.

PART TWO highlights how policymakers can use

this guide to either mainstream URL in an already

complete NUP document, or in a NUP under different

phases of development. NUP implementation

is comprised of five phases, namely feasibility,

diagnostic, formulation, implementation, monitoring

and evaluation. This guide provides suggestions for

strengthening URLs in each phase. If the process

of NUP development is advanced; policymakers

should assess the feasibility phase specifically for

mainstreaming URLs.

https://www.un.org/pga/73/2019/03/25/from-global-issues-to-local-priorities/ 2 Attachments

xii MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES IN NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

This will provide guidance on what information to

gather and which stakeholders to include following

the phases of mainstreaming URLs in NUP. A checklist

is provided in this guide to proceed through the

five NUP phases, but with a focus on URL in order

to arrive at the policy recommendations related

to URLs. The guide thus provides a framework for

assessing URL in each phase of NUP development

with tools for identifying challenges, opportunities,

priorities, stakeholder engagement, data gaps and

policy recommendations.

PART THREE provides a set of recommendations

for mainstreaming URL in policy with reference

to the URL-GP and eleven fields in the Framework

for Action. These recommendations may be useful

for the diagnostic and formulation phases of the

NUP, where policymakers define URL approaches --

informed by assessed challenges and opportunities.

The policy recommendations aspire to a unified

framework that may also help determine the methods

and institutional mechanisms for implementation.

Part three is complementary with part two such

that the specific challenges and opportunities

identified are also specifically addressed in policy

recommendations.

This guide provides a framework that can be revisited

when different challenges or opportunities arise in

different contexts. It is designed to be a reference

document for government officials, development

partners, civil society, the private sector, research

organizations and others. It also has checklists as

appendices which can copied or adapted for use

or for training the responsible stakeholders. It also

provides a template for an action plan to implement

specifically mainstreamed URL components in

ministries or agencies.

1WHY MAINSTREAM URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES

Introduction .................................................................21.1. Background ...........................................................31.2. Rationale for URL .....................................................71.3. URLs in the International Global Frameworks ..................81.3.1. URL in the UN-Habitat Agenda ..................................91.4. UN-Habitat NUP Process .............................................11

1.5. Methodology ..........................................................12

2MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES


This document primarily addresses decision-

makers and stakeholders engaged in formulating,

implementing, monitoring and evaluating national

urban policy (NUP). This guide presents how these

NUPs should strengthen urban-rural linkages and

empower local authorities as key actors in that effort.

The urban population of the world has grown

rapidly, from 751 million in 1950 to 4.2 billion in

20182. Projections show that urbanization, the

global shift in peoples’ residence from rural to urban

areas, combined with the overall growth of the

world’s population, could add another 2.5 billion

people to urban areas by 20503. More than 55% of

the world population is living in urban areas and this

has been projected rise to 68% in 2050. Rural-urban

migration is most of the time viewed as the main

cause of urbanization; however urban population

growth is also the result of the natural increase of

the urban population. Urbanization has resulted

cities developing and advancing as rural settlements

are left behind in most countries, but especially in

low-income countries. More investment, technology

and policy support is directed to urban areas for

infrastructure, the provision of health and social

services, and economic and technology development,

while development funding continues to decline

in rural areas and for provision of services for rural

agricultural activities. Nonetheless towns and cities

always have been and still are fundamentally reliant

upon rural areas for provisioning urban areas.

2 https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html3 World population prospects 2017; https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/

Such provisioning starts with food, including crop,

animal and fish products, but as important also

includes water, fiber and industries of all kinds that

support urban growth. Due to many changes in

the dynamic relationships between rural and urban

areas, the binary divide between urban and rural is

no longer functional, and in many cases, makes the

situation even worse. As urbanization takes place,

the peri- urban and rural areas should be considered

integral to sustainable urban development. The

functional and spatial development gaps between

predominantly urban and predominantly rural

areas are widening with grave economic, social and

environmental consequences.

As towns and cities grow, nearby peri-urban and

rural land is converted in many cases for urban land

uses. This spatial expansion of the built environment

should be managed through policy leading to

strategies and plans. One target of the Sustainable

Development Goal for cities (SDG 11.a) highlights the

need to support the positive social, environmental,

and economic linkages between urban, peri-urban

and rural areas through strengthened national

and regional development planning. This is further

supported by the NUA which calls for support of

small and intermediate cities as well as for the urban

and territorial planning and development approach

that includes urban and rural areas. Urban-rural

linkages is not a new issue on the global agenda and

was first highlighted in the 1976 Vancouver Action

Plan (Habitat I) and multiple times in UN-Habitat

resolutions. However, calls for action to address URLs

are more urgent now.

1INTRODUCTION

https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html


https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/

3MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES IN NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

National and subnational regional governments

should offer leadership and enabling support

for local governments to integrate urban

and rural development, for example through

National Urban Policies. The United Nations

Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

calls for a regional approach to leveraging

urbanization for Africa’s structural transformation4

, and notes that countries in Africa should

recognize the critical role of cities and all other

human settlements in national policy response to

urbanization. National urban policies (NUPs) are sets

of decisions to promote sustainable, inclusive and

resilient urban development, and include a territorial

approach to integrate urban, peri-urban and rural

areas and communities. NUPs should therefore

address urban issues while also incorporating rural

interactions with different levels of human settlement

(villages, small towns, intermediate cities and larger

cities). This guide will thus respond to how urban-

rural linkages should be mainstreamed in urban

policy.

4 (UNECA, 2017)

This guide has been developed through a review

of how existing NUPs and other policies and

frameworks guiding urban development that have

addressed urban rural linkages. One such framework

directly addressing this was convened by UN-Habitat

and diverse stakeholders. The Guiding Principles for

Urban-Rural Linkages (URL-GP) and Framework for

Action (FoA) provides the foundation for this guide.

Based on the URL-GP, the guide presents eleven

recommendations which may be incorporated in

developing or reviewing national or subnational

urban policies. The recommendations include

examples of NUPs in countries that have included

URLs in their urban policies and other frameworks

guiding urban development. The recommendations

are not prescriptive but provide options on how

and what URL dimensions may be included in

urban policies depending on context, analysis and

stakeholder engagement. Some guidance is also

provided on how and at what stages URLs can be

best incorporated in policy related to the pillars and

phases of implementing NUPs.

1.1. Background

A national urban policy is an important tool available

to governments that seek to manage and direct rapid

urbanization and to turn urbanization into a positive

effect while accommodating its inevitable stresses.

UN-Habitat works towards a better future but

recognized over 40 years ago that urban and

rural areas are interdependent. Other terms in

use include: urban-rural continuum, rural-urban

synergies, integrated territorial development (ITD),

functional territories or regional development that

combine urban, peri-urban and rural planning and

development. UN-Habitat defines Urban-Rural

A national urban policy (NUP) is defined as “A

coherent set of decisions derived through a

deliberate government-led process of coordinating

and rallying various actors for a common vision

and goal that will promote more transformative,

productive, inclusive and resilient urban

development for the long term”



(i) population and human capital;

(ii) investments and economic transactions;

(iii) governance interactions;

(iv) environment and amenities;

(v) products and services; and

(vi) information and data – along with the

different structures supporting (or constraining)

them: infrastructures, economic structures,

territorial structures and governance structures.

These linkages and interactions between urban and rural areas are described to include diverse

aspects, such as:

UN-Habitat defines 10 URL guiding principles (see below) to strengthen urban-rural linkages from different

perspectives which will form the basis for the recommendations for NUP in the respective sections.

Box 1. Guiding principles of urban and rural linkages (URL-GP) (include icons)

1. Locally grounded interventions: Translate global normative agendas in national and

subnational commitments for territorial cohesion and action.

2. Distributed governance: Incorporate the urban-rural nexus in multi-sectoral, multi-

level and multi-stakeholder approaches to governance integration.

3. Spatially and Functionally integrated: Promote integrative, inclusive and systems-

based approaches to urban and territorial planning.

4. Financially Inclusive: Secure and prioritize sustainable and responsible investments

balanced between and conducive to urban-rural linkages formal and informal sectors.

5. Balanced partnership: Foster partnerships, alliances and networks that link urban and

rural actors and different sectors and are inclusive, participatory and held accountable.

6. Human rights-based: Embed human rights-based approaches in all policy instruments

and actions across the urban-rural continuum.

Linkages as non-linear, diverse urban-rural interactions and linkages across space within an

urban-rural continuum, including flows of people, goods, capital and information but also

between sectors and activities such as agriculture, services and manufacturing. In general,

they can be defined as a complex web of connections between rural and urban dimensions5.

5 https://urbanrurallinkages.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/url-gp.pdf

https://urbanrurallinkages.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/url-gp.pdf


7. Do no harm and provide social protection: Build urban-rural linkages to recognize

cultural differences, overcome conflict, and inequalities in provision of social and health

services.

8. Environmentally sensitive: Protect, sustain, and expand areas important to

biodiversity and ecosystem services in transition to resilient, resource efficient societies.

9. Participatory engagement: Create spaces and mechanisms to ensure meaningful

participation of people, local institutions and communities across the urban-rural

continuum.

10. Data driven and evidence-based: Establish or improve knowledge systems for the

urban-rural continuum and territorial cohesion.

Source: https://urbanrurallinkages.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/url-gp-1.pdf

Box 2. Fields of Action for strengthening URL

• Governance, legislation and capacity development: assess capacity and needs

for policy tools; enhance dialogue and cooperation across sectors and planning levels

and convene new multi-level, multi-sector and multi-actor governance mechanisms and

support inclusion of affected urban and rural populations.

• Integrated planning across the urban-rural continuum: Support localization of

national planning; integrate urban-rural linkages and integrated territorial development

in National Urban Policies and promote networks and associations of planners in different

jurisdictions.

• Investment and finance for inclusive urban-rural development: Address and

improve public and private finance and access to credit across the urban-rural continuum,

focusing on small and intermediate towns and cities and integrated urban-rural territories.

Strengthen financial intermediation services and enable ecosystem service provision in

peri-urban and rural areas.

• Empower people and communities: Assess and support inclusive multi-actor

participatory processes and partnerships; directly address and compensate for inequities

across the urban-rural continuum in order to create balance and inclusion from informal

and formal sectors.

The URL-GP Framework for Action identifies eleven fields of action in the following thematic

areas:



• Knowledge/data management for dynamic spatial flows of people, products,

services and information: Improve collection and management of spatially and gender

disaggregated data and knowledge, including ensuring a balance between inclusion of

the formal and informal sectors.

• Territorial economic development and employment: Coordinate urban and rural

economic development to enhance synergies; harness the potential of small and

medium size towns and apply innovations in participatory credit, finance and enterprise

incubation schemes to create new jobs that improve territorial flows of products, services

and information.

• Coherent approaches to social service provision: Identify needs and opportunities

where stronger urban-rural linkages can impact more spatially and socially equitable

service provision; pilot new urban-rural partnerships for health and social services outside

cities.

• Infrastructure and communications: Perform integrated and inclusive urban-rural

infrastructure needs analysis; jointly plan, finance and construct infrastructure for water,

sanitation, roads and public transport, electrification and communication, etc.

• Integrated approaches for food security, nutrition, and public health: Mainstream

health and well-being by building coherent and linked urban-rural approaches to food,

water, energy and health systems with attention to the multiple benefits of the circular

economy of the urban-rural nexus, especially when coupled with capacity development

and inclusion.

• Environmental impact and natural resource and land management: Conduct

strategic environmental assessments to reduce environmental risk from severe flooding,

drought, storms, etc; address land and water tenure and sustainable use of natural

resources, protect biodiversity, promote ecosystem-based production systems and build

resilient landscapes.

• The urban-rural continuum in the face of conflict and disaster: Assess risks, gaps

and vulnerable populations in relation to potential hazards in urban, peri-urban and

rural areas; jointly plan for resilience measures and invest across jurisdictions to protect

transport, energy, information, health, education, food and water systems, etc.

Source: https://urbanrurallinkages.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/url-gp.pdf

https://urbanrurallinkages.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/url-gp.pdf


The world has rapidly transited from being rural to

urban in less than 100 years and human settlements

have increased from being 15% to 55% urbanized,

trend expected to continue and rise to 68% by the

middle of the 21st century6. However, more than

85% of the global poor live in rural areas2. As urban

populations grow, urban areas are expanding beyond

their borders through both formal and informal

means, often absorbing smaller settlements in their

growth path. The spatial expansion and increasing

interconnectivity of both megacities and secondary

cities have resulted in the emergence of mega-urban

regions that encompass other cities, towns, villages

and rural areas in the form of planned or unplanned

urban areas – posing challenges to the management

of urban issues under a governance structure defined

by administrative boundaries.

A “Planet of cities”7 is as a result of this growing

urban phenomenon, but not all people living in

urban areas live in large cities or metropolitan

regions. One in eight people live in a megacity, but

nearly half of the world’s population live in smaller

areas, with a population of less than 500,000 people8

. The small and intermediate cities (which have

population of less than 500,000) cannot therefore be

overlooked; the world cities 2016 report also states

that the cities with a population of less than 1 million

population will have the fastest growth especially in

developing countries. This shows the need to foster

and strengthen the functions of all levels of human

settlements, from a hamlet to a megacity. Fostering

human settlements involves not only the physical

provision of infrastructure and services in urban and

rural areas but also strengthening the institutional

capacity of all the government authorities among

others.

6 https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/7 Planet of cities is a distribution and inter-relationships of urban centers over space------to be revised8 United Nations, 2016, The World cities 2016

The world urbanization prospects 20189

revision report highlights that as the world continues

to urbanize, sustainable development challenges will

be increasingly concentrated in cities, particularly

in the lower-middle-income countries where the

pace of urbanization is fastest. It thus states that

integrated policies to improve the lives of both urban

and rural dwellers are needed, while strengthening

the linkages between urban and rural areas, building

on their existing economic, social and environmental

ties.

International guidelines for urban and territorial

planning (a globally applicable tool to improve

strategies and practices) advocates for planning

across administrative boundaries involving

multiple levels of government and multi-sector

stakeholders that include civil society, academia

and the private sector in urban and rural areas10

. This integrated planning approach promotes

inclusive financial investments in urban and rural

areas through provision of the relevant infrastructure

and services including ICT. The infrastructure

provision promotes the spatial flows of (people,

natural resources, capital, goods, ecosystem services,

information, technology, ideas and innovation) in

the urban-rural continuum which are all drivers of

economic growth and development. Migration,

especially rural to urban in the urban-rural continuum,

must also be taken into consideration to ensure no-

one and no place is left behind. There are also disasters

and negative environmental impacts associated with

urbanization, some affecting populations in the

urban-rural continuum. An integrated approach

incorporating the urban and rural areas is relevant

for managing all these urbanization related issues.

9 https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html10 UN Habitat; 2015, International Guidelines for Urban and Territorial Planning;

1.2. Rationale for URL





In line with the implementation of SDG 11 calling

for sustainable urbanization, the indicator for 11.a.1

emphasizes interdependency, interconnection and

complementary of urban and rural areas. NUPs were

identified as the tool for monitoring progress in the

indicator for 11.a.1 and the New Urban Agenda

(NUA). Governments can use NUPs to promote

sustainable development that cuts across urban, peri-

urban and rural areas. NUP should provide a national

development framework that would promote stronger

linkages between urban, peri-urban and rural areas

by a) linking sectoral policies; b) connecting national,

regional and local governments and policies; c)

strengthening urban, peri urban, and rural links

through integrated territorial development; and d)

increasing subnational governments’ resources to

achieve a full access of basic services at the local level11

. This is also fundamental to the attainment of many

other SDG targets. Boxes 3 and 4 give an overview of

the global normative frameworks that have emphasized

on the need for consideration of Urban-Rural linkages.

11 https://unhabitat.org/sdg-11-synthesis-report/

1.3. URLs in the International Global Frameworks

Box 3. SDGs and Urban-Rural Linkages

Provisions in major new global frameworks that were established in 2015 that are relevant to or supportive of national urban policy include the following:

• The Sustainable Development Goals adopted by Member States in 2015 have clearly identified the need to renew work on Urban-Rural Linkages as one of the transformative interventions. Goal 11 seeks to (Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable), particularly Target 11.3 (By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries), Goal 11.a (Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning.

Box 4. The New Urban Agenda and Urban-Rural Linkages

Paragraph 95 states that; the Member States will support implementing integrated, polycentric and balanced territorial development policies and plans, encouraging cooperation and mutual support among different scales of cities and human settlements, strengthening the role of small and intermediate cities and towns in enhancing food security and nutrition systems…….

Paragraph 75 states the commitment to long-term urban and territorial planning processes and spatial development practices that incorporate integrated water resources planning and management, considering the urban-rural continuum at the local and territorial level

Paragraph 49 is a commitment to support territorial systems that integrate urban and rural functions into the national and sub-national spatial frameworks

Paragraph 96 encourages “implementing sustainable urban and territorial planning, including city-region and metropolitan plans, to encourage synergies and interactions among urban areas of all sizes, and their peri-urban, and rural surroundings, including those that are cross border, and support the development of sustainable regional infrastructure projects that stimulate sustainable economic productivity, promoting equitable growth of regions across the urban-rural continuum.

The New Urban Agenda includes key actions addressing integrated urban and territorial development and URLs:

https://unhabitat.org/sdg-11-synthesis-report/


UN-Habitat has also previously addressed urban-rural

linkages in their resolutions since the first habitat at

Vancouver in 1976 that stressed the importance of

the rural dimension. This has further been elaborated

in the subsequent resolutions (see box 5) in 1999,

2003, 2013 and finally in 2015 where this was re-

emphasized and taken up towards the development

of the International Guidelines of Urban and Territorial

Planning (IGUTP) published in 2015 and Urban-Rural

Linkages Guiding Principles (URL-GP) published in

2019. In preparation for Habitat III an Issue Paper

addressing urban-rural linkages was prepared in

partnership with partners submitted; this led to

the inclusion of urban-rural dimensions in many

paragraphs of the New Urban Agenda.

1.3.1. URL in the UN-Habitat Agenda

Box 5. UN-Habitat Assembly earlier Urban-Rural linkages Resolutions

• Vancouver Action Plan (Habitat I) 1976, stressed the importance of the rural dimension of

human settlements

• Resolution HS/GC/17/10 of 14 May 1999 of the Commission on Human Settlements requested

that urban-rural interdependence be taken into consideration in the execution of the work

programme of United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), given the strong

synergy between urban and rural areas;

• UN-Habitat Resolution HSP/GC/19/6 of 9 May 2003 on Urban-Rural Linkages and sustainable

urbanization laid the ground for the 2005 publication entitled “Urban-Rural Linkages Approach

to Sustainable Development”

• UN-Habitat Resolution HSP/GC/25/1 and 25/4 of 2015 proposed the need to reduce the

disparities between the urban and rural areas through infrastructure development and

strengthening of small and intermediate cities

• UN-Habitat Resolution HSP/GC/24/3 promoted inclusive and sustainable urban planning and

elaboration of international guidelines on urban and territorial planning; it reinforced the

importance of regional planning which addresses the need of urban and rural spaces.



In 2019 however, was an advancement of this work,

since it was during the first UN-Habitat Assembly that

the resolution12 on urban-rural linkages was adopted

with reference to the Urban-Rural Linkages; Guiding

12 https://papersmart.unon.org/sites/default/files/Draft%20Urban-Rural%20Linkages%20Resolution%2026052019_0.docx

principles and Framework for Action publication.

The resolutions that specifically gives reference to

this guide on mainstreaming urban-rural linkages in

National Urban Policy are highlighted in box 6.

The UN-Habitat Strategic Plan 2020-25 (see Figure

1) on the other hand aims to address the challenges

in the urban-rural nexus through two domains

of change/goals. The first domain of change is

“Reduced spatial inequality and poverty in

communities across the urban-rural continuum”

and secondly “Enhanced shared prosperity for

cities and regions”. This guide aims to ensure that

this issues are addressed through policies and other

relevant frameworks.

REDUCED SPATIAL INEQUALITY

AND POVERTY IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS

THE URBAN-RURAL CONTINUUM

STRENGTHENED CLIMATE

ACTION AND IMPROVED URBAN

ENVIRONMENT

ENHANCED SHARED

PROSPERTY OF CITIES AND

REGIONS

EFFECTIVE URBAN CRISIS PREVENTION

AND RESPONSE

Figure 1. UN-Habitat Strategic Plan 2020-2025

Box 6. UN-Habitat Assembly 2019 Urban-Rural linkages in policy Resolutions

• OP 2. Strongly encourages Member States to take into account urban-rural linkages in their

respective national and subnational development planning policies and processes in order to

strengthen the economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural

areas, including their surrounding territories;

• OP 5. Also requests the Executive Director, in cooperation with appropriate partners, to

disseminate and share good practices and policies relating to the impact of urban-rural linkages

that could be replicated in other countries; and

• OP 6. Further requests the Executive Director, in consultation with appropriate partners and

within the scope of available resources, to assist Member States, upon request, in developing

policies and programmes to address migration from rural to urban areas.

https://papersmart.unon.org/sites/default/files/Draft Urban-Rural Linkages Resolution 26052019_0.docx

https://papersmart.unon.org/sites/default/files/Draft Urban-Rural Linkages Resolution 26052019_0.docx


UN-Habitat advises countries to apply an

integrated approach to NUP that has five phases

and three supporting pillars. As shown in Figure

2, the NUP phases are: feasibility, diagnosis,

formulation, implementation, and monitoring and

evaluation. The three key pillars are: participation,

capacity development and acupuncture projects.

Mainstreaming of thematic areas such as urban-rural

linkages entails embedding an area into the National

Urban Policy process. This entails considering urban-

rural linkages from the beginning of the NUP

process as feasibility and subsequently in the other

phases. Part two highlights the specific activities in

mainstreaming process to the various NUP phases.

1.4. UN-Habitat NUP Process

Figure 2. NUP Phases and PillarsFeasibility: the first NUP phase where a case for

mainstreaming URL is identified.

Diagnosis in NUP: this is a phase in NUP process

where evidence of the existing situation of the URL

and alternative approaches are gathered involving all

the relevant stakeholders.

Formulation of NUP: this is the phase where the

proposals for mainstreaming URL are derived and

selected from the alternative options in the previous

phase.

Implementation of NUP: in this phase the

implementation plan of the policy proposals

including budgeting and responsible agencies or

persons for implementing URL policy programs are

clearly defined and executed.

Monitoring and evaluation of NUP: monitoring

of food system and nutrition sensitive strategies

happens throughout the process and thus evaluation

of the outcome of the implemented projects or

programs as relates to URL in policy.

PA

RTICIPATION

CAPACITY D

EVELO

PMEN

T

ACCUPUNCTURE P

ROJE

CTS

MONITORING&

EVALUATION

FEASIBILITY

DIA

GN

OSTIC

IMPL

EMEN

TATI

ON

FORMULATIONFORMULATION



As earlier mentioned, the NUA call for strengthening

of NUPs which can be through mainstreaming

various thematic areas which include urban-rural

linkages. However, every country context is unique;

some countries have explicit National Urban Policy

while others have partial NUP which are a collection

of urban-related policies, strategies or plans for

urban development at national level. Others still have

no NUP and are gaining interest in developing one or

still have no plans for NUP.

This guide provides a framework in which

policy makers can use to ensure that urban-rural

linkages is addressed in policy; whether an explicit

or partial NUP or sector policy depending on the

context. It is important to note that this guide can be

used either for review of a complete policy or during

the policy development process. The checklist in

appendix 1 provides the basis for the mainstreaming

process despite the type of mainstreaming; during

the process or of a complete NUP.

The summary of how this guide may be used

is outlined in figure 3; it entails the initial stage

of making case for mainstreaming URL through

identification of the challenges and opportunities as

well as the relevant stakeholders. The initial stages

of these assessment of the challenges could

be supported by UN-Habitat URL tools and

methodologies among other methodologies.

Once the URL challenges and opportunities have

been identified; the next step is identifying alternative

policy approaches. The alternative approaches are

evaluated and the best options defined which are

incorporated in the policy implementation and

monitoring and evaluation plans. This guide presents

a section; part two which describes the mainstreaming

process of URL in policy. This part describes phase by

phase activities which should be considered by policy

makers in mainstreaming, the other part which is part

three; presents 11 recommendations which are in

line with the framework of action of the guiding

principles of URL. The recommendations provide a

framework for making policy options in NUP for URL.

Participation- achieving true participatory approach to NUP development means integrating

participatory approaches throughout the formation of a policy which determines the degree of

input by the public to be reflected ultimately in policy.

Acupuncture projects- the aim of this pillar is to ensure that a policy action is being translated

into direct action ensuring that policy directives are relevant and implementable.

Capacity development- integrating the capacity development at all levels of government

is necessary for building sustainable a sustainable policy. this should be through assessment

and development of human, financial and institutional capacity to ensure that NUP can be

developed, implemented, implemented and monitored and evaluated.

1.5. Methodology


Figure 3. Mainstreaming Process

Identify alternative URL policy approaches for the de�ned URL challenges and opportunities

Evaluate the alternative URL policy approaches to de�ne the best policy initiatives

Incorporate URL policy initiatives in the overall policy monitoring and evaluation plans

Incorporate URL policy initiatives in the overall policy implementation plan

Identify URL policy gaps

Making case of URL in NUP by identifying URL challenges and opportunities

Gather evidence for URL challenges and opportunities

PA

RTICIPATION

CAPACITY D

EVELO

PMEN

T

ACCUPUNCTURE P

ROJE

CTS

MONITORING&

EVALUATION

FEASIBILITYD

IAG

NO

STIC

IMPL

EMEN

TATI

ON

FORMULATIONFORMULATION

2HOW TO MAINSTREAM URL IN POLICY

URL Mainstreaming in NUP Process.....................................16

2.1. Support Pillars in Mainstreaming URL in a NUP Process ......18

2.1.1. Participation .........................................................18

2.1.2. Capacity development ............................................19

2.1.3. Acupuncture projects ..............................................21



As outlined in the first section of this guide,

NUPs typically evolve through 5 phases namely:

feasibility, diagnostic, formulation, implementation,

and monitoring and evaluation. NUP phases are

interconnected; thus, despite the NUP phase,

a country should start at the feasibility phase

requirements to specifically apply the URL-GP as

outlined in the checklist in appendix 1. Each Phase

has a checklist for consideration by policy makers;

not necessarily to have a separate document for

mainstreaming URL in NUP, but to knit URL into the

policy process. The checklist helps to ensure that

nothing concerning the URL issues identified is left

out. This checklist has included activities related to

that NUP general process that are specific to URL.

Figure 3 outlines the URL mainstreaming process fir

in to NUP process.

The feasibility phase in the policy process entails

seeking evidence for mainstreaming URLs in policy

by identifying the challenges and opportunities

of urban-rural linkages in a specific context. In

defining the URL challenges and opportunities

UN-Habitat tools and methodologies among

other methodologies (provide link) could be

applied as the first step. All the stakeholders relevant

for particular URL challenges and opportunities

outlined are later mapped out to identify their roles

and the extent to which they have been engaged in

these thematic areas in decision making processes.

Policies that incorporate the URL challenges and

opportunities identified are also outlined and

reviewed for gaps to address them.

In the diagnostic phase, preliminary research (using

the URL challenges assessment tool) about the

URL challenges and opportunities identified in the

previous phase is conducted to define what data

is available, the level of disaggregation, method of

collection, analysis and presentation of the gathered

evidence. This also helps in defining the data gaps

that would require field survey and stakeholder

engagement using the URL data management

framework and matrix. This will result in a report

that is both an assessment and analysis of the

various URL challenges and opportunities identified;

their character and extent. From this analysis,

recommendations for policy are made with reference

to the 11 recommendations in this guide. For the

specificity of the challenge, the recommendations

provide guidance on what policy initiatives could

include. The challenges and opportunities are

therefore linked with the recommendations given

in this NUP-URL guide, ensuring that if they fall in

more than one recommendation nothing is left out.

The recommendations should include alternative

approaches for every URL challenge. The human,

financial, technical and institutional capacity gaps for

URL priorities are identified and documented using

the URL Capacity gaps assessment tool. This

tool guides the preparation of the human, financial,

technical and institution capacity development

strategies for the relevant stakeholders for URL using

the URL Priority Assessment tool.

In the formulation phase the alternative approaches

are analyzed, identifying the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats. Through this, the best

approaches with more strength and opportunities

are selected. This then helps to identify the most

effective policy initiatives for the URL challenges and

opportunities. When the specific policy initiatives

are identified, there is also a need to identify if the

2URL MAINSTREAMING IN NUP PROCESS


relevant stakeholders/actors have the appropriate

human, technical and institutional capacities. If the

capacities are different from those in the strategies

developed in the previous phase, they should

be incorporated in the finance, human capacity

development, technical capacity development and

institutional capacity development strategies. It is in

this phase also that an action plan in appendix 4 for

implementing the URL policy proposals is developed.

The action plan captures several aspects of the URL

Policy proposal implementation which includes:

the respective recommendation (from this guide),

policy initiative, the activities, timelines, indicators

of success, cost of estimate, source of funding,

implementing agency and the leading agency.

In the implementation phase the action plan acts

as guidance for ensuring that policy initiatives are

executed, see Appendix 4 for the template. The

first step is however ensuring that all the relevant

stakeholders have approved and agree with the

action plan. The action plan contains the activities,

the indicators of achievement, the actors or

organizations responsible, the estimated costs and

the source of funding. It is therefore important to

ensure that the finance, human capacity, institution,

technical and legal strategies are executed. The

indicators in the action plan will help in the feedback

mechanisms and monitoring of the effectiveness of

the activities for the URL policy initiatives.

Monitoring and evaluation is something that

ought to take place in every phase during the process.

The checklist in appendix 1 will assist in monitoring

the mainstreaming of URL in policy process. This

includes confirming have all the stakeholders taken

up their roles and are they able to effectively execute

them. Has the human, financial, legal, institution,

technical strategy been effective for implementation

of policy? Have the timelines been followed and are

they effective? Evaluation takes place while checking

the outcomes of every URL policy initiative. Have the

policy changed the situation in the country or region

including how institutions work. Have there been

challenges and how can they be addressed?

The process of mainstreaming the URL-GP is based

on the five NUP phases described above, depending

on the stage of NUP process, for example whether a

complete NUP exists or is under development. For a

NUP in the process of being developed the policy

maker should ensure that the NUP process and URL

mainstreaming process occur concurrently. For a

complete NUP/sector policy document, there is no

major difference in the process since policy makers

should follow similar activities highlighted in Appendix

1 in the five phases. The only difference is that for

the complete NUP/Policy document, the URL policy

proposal should fit in an already existing framework

and thus the existing policy must be reviewed.

During the process of developing a NUP where no

NUP exists, other policies that could be reviewed

include the sectoral policies, national strategies,

subnational policies where competences for

URL are allocated at subnational level and

international policies also related to the identified

URL challenges or opportunities - to check for gaps. It

is important to note that it is in phase one, feasibility,

that the existing policy will be reviewed and analyzed

based on the challenges and opportunities identified.

The review will be conducted using the checklist in

Appendix 3 based on the recommendations that best

fit the URL challenges or opportunities identified.

For example, to address food security challenges

in the checklist in Appendix 3, one would check

those under recommendation 9 “promote food and

nutrition security and public health in both urban

and rural areas”. This checklist is instrumental for

checking on areas that are left out based on the URL

challenges and opportunities in a country or region

and forms a basis for data collection, analysis and

presentation for the URL policy proposal.



The UN-Habitat NUP process is based on three key pillars: participation, capacity development and

acupuncture projects. The use and implementation of these pillars does not occur at one particular

stage in the policy process, but must be considered throughout. Consideration for participation,

capacity development, and acupuncture projects should occur at all stages of developing a NUP,

and will contribute to the overall sustainability and effectiveness of the policy.

2.1.1. Participation

UN-Habitat advocates for a participatory approach

throughout the NUP process -- in all phases. It is

however very key that all relevant stakeholders such as

different levels of government authorities, civil society

organizations, private sector, communities (including

vulnerable populations) or academia relevant to

the specific URL challenge and opportunities in a

country/region are involved. This URL-NUP guide

specifically emphasizes the participation of all these

stakeholders in rural, urban and peri-urban areas.

Public participation entails direct engagement

of the public in decision making and taking full

consideration of public input in making decisions

to ensure that their needs are reflected in policy. It

is not a single event but a process consisting of a

series of activities and actions with the public over

the full life-span of a project - to not only inform

(through public outreach) but also to obtain input

and partner with them (through public partnership).

These activities could include: consultative meetings,

questionnaires, interviews, gazette notices, training

and capacity development and partnership building.

The contributions by stakeholders could be in tapping

their skills, knowledge, information or financial

support in cases of private-public partnerships.

Often participatory approaches that equalize

dynamic exchange between urban, peri-urban

and rural actors create a sense of ownership and

control among those involved which is important

for strengthening urban-rural linkages. Participation

should also generate new and concrete ideas since

different views will be captured. Box 7 contains

examples of countries that have incorporated

participation in their urban policies. However, apart

from ensuring that participation is included in the

policy initiatives, the URL mainstreaming process

should be highly participatory in all phases. A

checklist has been developed (see Appendix 2) to

cross check if participation in the mainstreaming

process of URL in NUP is comprehensive. It checks

the level, nature and extent of engagement of the

various stakeholders ensuring all are incorporated.

2.1. Support Pillars in Mainstreaming URL in a NUP Process

Measures should be put in place to ensure that all the relevant stakeholders in urban, peri-urban

and rural areas are involved in the mainstreaming process of URL in policy


In the process of mainstreaming URLs in policy, it

would be key to ensure that not only are the right

policy incentives set but the appropriate capacities

for implementation are available. The NUP process

seeks to ensure that in every phase the capacities

are key not only for policy development but also for

implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This is

also key in the mainstreaming process to ensuring

that the human, financial, institutional and technical

capacities for addressing the context URL challenges

are available. This should be comprehensive and

inclusive of stakeholders in the urban, peri-urban

and rural areas.

Strategies for the development of human capacities

include training on URL issues at hand to increase

understanding and also developing skills particular

to URLs.

Mainstreaming Inclusive Practice: The case of Ghana

Ghana’s NUP was launched in March 2013 after four years of context analysis, workshops, and local and

international consultation. The policy aims broadly to promote sustainable urban development with a

focus on housing, basic services and improving institutional efficiency. The policy has a five year Action

Plan which is being led by the Urban Development Unit within the Department of Local Government and

Rural Development.

One of the unique features of the Ghanaian NUP is its approach to informal sector businesses and

settleements. The NUP aims to “change the official attitude towards informal entreprises from neglect to

recognition and policy support”. The policy, therefore, is working to change the more traditional mindset

that sees the informal sectors are as bothillegal and undesirable. Mainstreaming an inclusive approach into

the NUP and attempting to change mindsets through the policy can allow for broader systems change. An

inclusive approach can also facilitate a more participatory NUP by considering for populations, such as those

within the informal sector, that are traditionally can be excluded can be excluded from the policy process.

Source: National Urban Policy: The Guiding Framework pp15

2.1.2. Capacity development

Box 7. NUP Excerpts

National Urbanization Policy Malaysia, 2006, page 66

Local authorities need to cooperate closely with the local community, non-governmental organizations and the private sector to plan and implement appropriate urban planning and management programmes that meet with their requirements for sustainable development as mooted in the Local Agenda 21.

Rwanda National Urbanization policy, 2015, page 23A shared vision and prioritization of implementation tasks must be established in a participatory manner involving the public and private sectors and civil society.

Mechanisms to develop the capacities of the relevant stakeholders in URL should be prioritized



This may include hiring appropriate personnel if

currently unavailable or additional training for

those already employed. Financial capacities would

include mechanisms to provide adequate finances

for the URL issues identified through, for example,

partnerships with private sector, cutting of costs

in other sectors, raising additional taxes or rates

by governments, seeking donor funding among

other approaches. Institutional capacities include

the number of personnel, office space, level of

infrastructure available among others.

Technical capacities include the URL data available

and ability to collect, store and use, the levels of

technology needed for the work, the appropriate

technical expertise, etc. Some countries have

captured capacity development even in policy (see

Box 8). To assist URL policy mainstreaming processes

in the areas of capacity development, a checklist has

been provided in Appendix 2. This checklist helps

ensure that capacity needs and gaps are identified

and the capacity development strategies are then

developed and executed.

Box 8. NUP Excerpts

NUP Excerpt: Ghana NUP, 2006

In strengthening urban governance there is a need to probe and strengthen the institutional framework

at the local level for effective coordination of urban development in the light of the provisions of Act 462

and its subsidiary legislation and Strengthen institutional arrangements and measures to ensure efficient

implementation of the NUP at the local level

The policy recommends that the institution capacity improvement to allow for the implementation of

the same.

Putting Capacity Development at the Core of Urban Development: The Case of Cambodia

Prior to the development and Implementation of a NUP, the Cambodian Government embarked on a

national project of capacity development and technical training of sub-national government officials.

The project, launched in 2013, was led by the launch of a project document, Capacity Development for

Urban Management Project.

The project preceded and was in conjunction with the launch of the Cambodian Rectangular Strategy

Phase III 2014-2018. The strategy set urbanization and urban development as a national priority and

put capacity development and technical training at the forefront. Implementing a capacity development

and training programme prior to the Rectangular Strategy Phase III aimed to prepared regional and local

governments for increased level of responsibility due to the devolution of governance and financial

power proposed in the strategy. By aiming to strengthen institutions and institutional connectivity prior

to the implementation of the strategy, the Cambodian Government’s approach is a useful example of

how to prepare for the practical considerations of implementing of the strategy prior to its development.

Source: National Urban Policy: The Guiding Framework pp16


This entails an opportunity for policy to be made up

to date by having quick win projects and programmes

for urban, peri-urban and rural areas. This helps

in strengthening the NUP itself as a tool for urban

development but also helps to avoid possible failures.

The URL policy initiatives should ensure that the

activities in the action plan have both short, medium

and long-term projects. Short term projects should

be easy to implement in terms of the skills and the

human and financial resources required. It should be

clear who are the persons responsible for the project,

the estimated budget and other specific aspects of

the project. There should be clear indicators to allow

for a feedback loop, especially to link the short term

project results to the medium and long term projects.

This should allow for revision and adjustments to

the URL policy initiatives through lessons learned

in the short and medium terms. In help identify

acupuncture projects in the URL mainstreaming

policy process see Appendix 2 for the aspects that

need to be to cross-checked. This includes the

quick win projects identified, the specific resources

required, the timelines, the implementation outcome

and lessons learned.

2.1.3. Acupuncture projects

The URL Policy initiatives should consider acupuncture projects

3WHAT TO MAINSTREAM IN NUPs

Recommendations for mainstreaming URLs in NUPs ...............24

Recommendation 1 ........................................................24

Recommendation 2 ........................................................25

Recommendation 3 ........................................................26

Recommendation 4 .......................................................28

Recommendation 5 .......................................................30

Recommendation 6 .......................................................30

Recommendation 7 ........................................................31

Recommendation 8 .......................................................32

Recommendation 9 ........................................................33

Recommendation 10 .......................................................34

Recommendation 11 .......................................................36



The recommendations for policy are in line with

the UN-Habitat Framework for Action (FfA) of in

the Urban-Rural Linkages Guiding Principles (URL-

GP). This part provides recommendations based

on the FfA for what policymakers may consider in

mainstreaming URLs in policy. The recommendations

are meant as an inspiration and to provides

references to be adapted to country specific URL

priorities and local contexts. This means that locally

grounded interventions (Guiding Principle 1) should

be the foundation for recommendations in the NUP

process.

3

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAINSTREAMING URLS IN NUPS

Recommendation 1Encourage governance, legislation and capacity development across administrative boundaries

NUP ought to strengthen governance mechanisms

incorporating the urban-rural nexus in multi-sectoral,

multi-level and multi-stakeholder approaches to

foster conditions for local governments to realize

integrated territorial development. Policy should

also ensure a continuous knowledge exchange,

dialogue and capacity development on processes

and approaches to strengthen urban-rural linkages

that in turn drive sustainable and inclusive growth

between stakeholders from government, civil

society, academia, and the private sector. A focus

on inclusive governance mechanisms to review

institutional mandates and policies (e.g. rural

dimensions in urban policies and urban dimensions

in rural policies), including coherence between

national, regional and local norms and decisions, is

key in governance-related policy. The policy should

also include executive and/or legislative initiatives,

regulations, procedures and interventions at a

territorial level which, if needed, revise governance

structures that have previously led to unproductive

administrative separation and/or parallel

competencies found in both urban and territorial

authorities. NUP should support the inclusion of

affected urban and rural populations including youth,

urban unemployed and informal workers, farmers

and women’s organizations in planning, decision

making and in design of governance platforms

and programs to promote holistic understanding

of issues, participatory governance, and to increase

accountability and ensuring ownership of processes

and solutions by urban and rural communities. There

should also be a focus on raising awareness and the

capacity of the local planning units on the benefits,

dimensions and dynamics of urban and rural linkages

through the association of professional planners and

planning departments across levels of governance.

See Box 9 an example from the Malaysian NUP.

25 MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES IN NATIONAL URBAN POLICIES

Rapid urbanization in various parts of the world

requires preparedness through integrated urban and

territorial planning13. Failure to do this may result

in high poverty levels, expanding slums, increase

the urban-rural gap and have negative health and

increased environmental risk including to the effects

of climate change. By contrast, integrated urban and

territorial planning can result in greater food security

and improved nutrition in both rural and urban

areas, enhanced spatial flows of people, products

and information, upgrading of slums, narrowing of

the urban-rural gap, climate change resilience, better

public health and environmental protection among

other benefits. There is therefore the opportunity

to strengthen development opportunities through

territorial planning and development strategies and

tools to ensure that both urban and rural areas

function to their optimum potential. NUPs ought to

first ensure that urban and rural development are not

considered separately, but in an integrated manner,

across administrative boundaries and sectors

(enhancing the cooperation and communication

between different government departments and/

or ministries). This should be through reviewing,

adapting and using locally relevant legal instruments

and planning methods to develop people- and place-

13 UN Habitat; 2015, International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning; https://unhabitat.org/books/international-guidelines-on-urban-and-territorial-planning/

based development plans. All scales of urban and

rural settlements should be considered for territorial,

functional and ecosystem-based interconnectivity.

An integrated approach enhances the provision of

services, infrastructure and amenities which ensure

inclusivity of opportunities for both rural and urban

dwellers. An integrated development approach can

also address environmental protection, food security,

reduction of poverty and inequality. Government

planning authorities and units from all levels and

sectors should be brought together in planning for

URLs. Special attention is needed to support the

financial, human and institutional capacities of small

and intermediate cities. Through working together,

these planning authorities should define a vision

and develop action plans for sustainable economic,

social and environmental development that integrate

the needs of different levels of planning. Regional

planning should include the whole urban-rural

continuum from the village level to larger towns and

cities. This is key since when connectivity is enhanced

the economic urban-rural gap is bridged. It limits the

gaps between the small and mega cities promoting

decentralization of services including government

departments not being located in only mega cities.

Incorporating rural activities in the city and vice-

versa is a final strategy in integrated urban and rural

development.

Box 9. National Urban Policy excerpts

Malaysia National Urban Policy: 2006, Page 66

Local authorities need to cooperate closely with the local community, non-governmental organizations

and the private sector to plan and implement appropriate urban planning and management programs

that meet with their requirements for sustainable development as noted in the Local Agenda 21.

Recommendation 2Advocate for integrated urban and territorial development

https://unhabitat.org/books/international-guidelines-on-urban-and-territorial-planning/




This includes activities such as urban agriculture and

rural manufacturing. Urban agriculture, for example,

reduces food miles by contributing to urban areas

being able to feed themselves. Rural manufacturing

ensures maximum profits for food producers by

reducing the middle men, thus reducing rural to

urban migration and contributing to the inclusive

development of rural and urban areas. Box 10

shows an example of Bangladesh and Uganda that

incorporated this in NUP.

Box 10. National Urban Policy Excerpts

Bangladesh National Urban Policy, 2011, page 16

Regional development planning should be pursued in order to develop a coordinated system of

human settlements, from the small village as unit of production, to the intermediate communities

and regional centres as units of production and distribution of goods and services, to the large

city - as the centre of the national economy and administrative system.

Uganda National Urban Policy, 2014, page 29

Plan, organize and coordinate urban agricultural activities; and Commission research into the viability of

urban agriculture to ensure it does not disrupt development.

Recommendation 3Promote inclusive finance and investment for development in both urban and rural areas

Rural areas are lagging in terms of development

as more and more investment by governments are

directed primarily to urban areas for example for

physical and social infrastructure, basic services,

recreation facilities, public spaces, investments in

housing, manufacturing industries, etc.14 These

investments create employment opportunities,

improve livelihoods, and reduce poverty levels

among other benefits. NUP should lay down

systems to ensure that as the government invests in

infrastructure for basic services, recreation facilities,

public spaces, housing, and industries, peri-urban

and rural areas and small and intermediate towns

14 Allain-Dupré, D. (2011), “Multi-level Governance of Public Investment: Lessons from the Crisis”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2011/05, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg87n3bp6jb-en

are not left out. This therefore calls for more than

a sectoral approach, but rather, a regionally or

territorially-based investment approach by national

government to implement NUPs and make budget

allocations. Beyond physical and social infrastructure,

a regional approach should also include fiscal support

for activities in peri-urban and rural areas and small

and intermediate towns that have high potential for

agricultural production and processing.

NUPs should also ensure adaptation of financial

mechanisms for payment of environment services

(PES) at all national and subnational levels. Such

financial support should be accessible to primary

actors who manage ecosystem functions such as

women and smallholder family farmers, livestock


producers and forest managers. Public budgets

at the territorial and local levels should to new

territorial policies integrating economic and

environmental management activities, among other

sectoral activities. There should also be measures to

improve public and private finance instruments to

address credit and finance barriers in both urban and

rural areas; see Box 11 an example of rural finance

and financial inclusion in rural India for smallholder

famers, women and poorer households. Such

initiatives promote rural development reducing rural-

urban migration but also overdependency on urban

areas for major basic services and social amenities.

Box 11. Promoting rural finance and financial inclusion in Rural India

Source: GIZ-NABARD Rural Financial Institutions Programme, Annual Report 2013/2014

Through the Rural Financial Institutions Programme implemented between 2009-2015; rural financial

institutions offered demand-oriented financial services for smallholder famers, women and poorer

households. This was implemented through National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

(NABARD) also known as Financial Inclusion Department, which offered funds used for training,

technological innovation and other programme activities reaching the rural poor. The impact has been

realized through two major vehicles: growth in the rural cooperative system and microfinance through

self-help groups and financial inclusion.

Rural Cooperative credit system: Since 2008 the rural cooperative credit system, which consists of

92,000 institutions with 120 million members, has been able to improve its performance by standardizing

its systems for accounting, auditing, training and counselling. One particular success has been the

creation of a national institute with 4,360 institutional members currently, and which now controls the

quality of training in the sector and certifies the professional competences of employees. By establishing

advisory units in cooperative banks (114 to date), the programme has helped to improve business

development in many of the primary cooperatives. The proportion of cooperative banks achieving a

rating of at least ‘sufficiently sound’ has increased from 66 to 97%. Many cooperatives have increased

the range of services for their members. The value of loans disbursed has doubled and the share of

member borrowing has increased from 37 to 45%.

Microfinance through self-help groups and financial inclusion: Since 2008 the number of members

of self-help groups holding deposits in banks has increased from 50 to 90 million. 82% of the members

are women and 56% of the groups have outstanding bank loans. The range and quality of banking

services for self-help groups has been improved though the development of demand-oriented products

and the employment of their members as banking agents at village level. On behalf of two banks, about

70 women now provide banking services to 18,600 clients in 286 villages. New technologies enable

the women to provide previously unavailable services such as money transfers. Nine additional banks

plan to replicate this approach in the future. Membership in self-help groups and their role as bank

intermediaries strengthens the position of women in households and village communities. Studies show

that 92% of the women feel empowered by joining a self-help group. Meanwhile, 70% of the group

members are satisfied with the banking services, 25% of them have increased their incomes, and the

expenditure on education and health has increased by 34%.



NUP should foster partnerships, alliances and

networks that link urban and rural actors and different

sectors (see Box 12). This should include synergies

across urban and rural actors and harness capacities

and skills across a wide range of stakeholders, such

as government authorities, civil society, private sector

and academic institutions. It should be done through

participatory processes for full engagement of local

institutions, communities and people including

the marginalized/vulnerable people groups. These

participatory processes should entail empowering

women, indigenous people, children, slum dwellers,

migrants and all those at risk of being left behind after

participatory analysis identifies participation gaps.

These interactions can be enhanced also through

improved transportation networks linking rural and

urban areas including communication, electricity and

ICT networks among other means of allowing for

mutual interaction. Promoting local administration

for cooperation between rural and urban authorities

is another aspect of urban-rural partnerships

that urban policies should consider through joint

initiatives, programs and projects. This could include

for example, trainings of farmers by agricultural

departments of local governments in both urban

and rural areas to showcase innovations in food

processing and marketing.

Recommendation 4 Empower people and communities in urban and rural areas

Box 12. Estonia Regional Development Strategy 2014-2020

One of the objectives of the NUP in Estonia referred to as the Regional Development Strategy 2014-

2020 is to strengthen regional links and capacity development. Activities to achieve this strategy include

projects such as: transportation links between county centers/small towns and across borders, municipal

ICT infrastructure and E-services. Other activities include capacity development of municipalities

and regional authorities, NGOs providing services or representing communities, cooperation among

municipalities, regional impact assessment of sectoral policies on contributions to regional development

goals and rural community involvement in development initiatives.

From a survey conducted in 2013, Estonia, had urban-rural cooperation which consisted of joint

provision of public services especially in areas such as waste management, education, transport, social

services and healthcare. Local authorities cooperated in drawing-up development plans and organizing

cultural events. Many small local government units buy public services from neighbouring municipalities.

This type of co-operation is usually carried out on a contractual basis. For example, five municipalities in

Ida-Virumaa collectively established a service for monitoring public purchasing orders at municipal level.

This is an example of a success story contributing to the NUP process. In other cases, it is normally the

NUP that leads to success stories. If success stories regarding urban-rural partnership do not exist or exist,

strategies can ensure that such partnerships or co-operations are included in policy.


Communities in both urban and rural areas (see

Box 13) should be empowered; without excluding

vulnerable actors. Urbanization in mostly developing

countries has resulted to situations whereby

rural areas are increasingly lagging in terms of

development. These inequities have deepened

between the larger cities that are densely populated

and the village centers or smaller cities as more

people move to or work in urban areas. Policies

should seek to provide for support to undeserved

communities both in urban and rural areas creating

opportunities to the urban and rural poor while

improving access to better health and education.

Policies should build frameworks and institutional

arrangements that allow the flow of investments,

knowledge and skills necessary to address disparities

between urban and rural people and territories.

Policies should also propose partnerships to

specifically address imbalances between urban and

rural actors. Participation should also be encouraged

in policy formulation, monitoring and evaluation by

communities in both urban and rural areas.

Box 13. Indonesia: Empowering Rural Communities

• Provide trainings to people living in rural areas, to prepare them better for the jobs they seek when

migrating to an urban area or improve their productivity; these trainings include computer skills,

sports, life skills and other capacity development skills; these trainings are inclusive of all gender and

age groups.

• Invest in productive rural infrastructure.

• Strengthen local institutions.

• Indonesia Village 2014 Law implementation which aims to promote greater participation of rural

people in development processes, introduce more effective poverty reduction interventions and

support improved local governance.

Source: IFAD (2018) International Fund for Agricultural Development; Investing in rural people

Ongoing projects in Indonesia empowering rural

communities



Data plays a major role in decision making whether

for urban or rural areas. There are constant and

recurring flows of people, products, services and

information between urban and rural areas. It is

therefore critical to have data concerning these

flows that is disaggregated by territory, identity,

age, and gender among other factors. Good data

will help determine whether these flows minimize

disparities between urban and rural territories.

Some infrastructure that rely heavily on data

promotes more effective flows of people, products,

services and information such as transport and ICT

infrastructure. Policies should advocate for adequate

capacity building of local and national governments

to collect, use and store spatially disaggregated

data. This data should be made available to use for

participatory planning and policy decisions. Policies

should direct decision-making institutions to utilize

spatially disaggregated data. Policy should also

promote modernized information technologies such

as GPS and GIS for data management. Mapping of

spatial flows of people is essential. Rural to urban

migration is a primary driver of urbanization rates

globally, though not the only cause of urban growth,

and daily or seasonal mobility is also a dynamic

aspect of urban-rural relations15. Data is needed

for both migration and mobility in terms of extent

and causes, in order for policy to have an evidence

base to achieve intended results. Box 14 shows a

policy initiative in Bhutan policy towards managing

movement of people through developing growth

centers to accommodate people. This is to reduce

pressure on urban areas and ensure manageable

rural and urban areas.

15 UNDESA 2018, World urbanization prospects; https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html


Bhutan National Urbanization Strategy; 2008, page 73-74

Preparation of a growth centre strategy that identifies migration alternatives (for the cities that are fast growing); the

growth centers must have adequate physical space to accommodate the population, have a stable economic base,

not impact negatively on the environment, have physical and social infrastructure and be a center for decentralized

governance.

Recommendation 5 Provide structures for knowledge and data management for spatial flows of people, products,

services, resources and information

Recommendation 6 Guidance on ways to promote territorial development and employment including building the

capacity of small and intermediate cities

Most of the population in low- and middle-income

nations live in small and intermediate urban centres16

or depend on them for access to goods and services.

16 United Nations, 2016, The World cities 2016

The fact that most secondary schools, higher-

education institutions, hospitals and government

offices are located in urban areas does not necessarily

imply an “urban bias”.





However the location of health and education services

may contribute to the urban-rural development and

service provision gap. Similarly, there is no “urban

bias” when local government offices with jurisdiction

over rural districts have “urban” locations (even in

small and intermediate cities), unless this removes

them from the influence of rural populations. The

small and intermediate centers should serve the

rural populations and thus should be supported

to provide services and amenities for them. NUPs

should promote the development of these towns

through provision of services and infrastructure,

support market centers for agricultural production or

planned areas for agro-processing and employment.

NUPs should also support the building up of local

capacity in small and intermediate cities to manage

financial resources, collect revenue for adequate

service provision and improve urban management.

Rural areas are in most cases left behind in

development and especially in the provision of

amenities and services. This leaves populations in

rural areas without access to such amenities as

education, health, markets and recreational facilities.

When policies promote urban-rural linkages to

deliver socially and spatially equitable services, these

services can improve the outreach to the entire

population in an urban-rural context. Policy could

also promote public/private/community partnerships

with governments in delivery of these services.

Encouraging planning of services that coordinate

among mandates and actions at all government levels

is vital. This should lead to comprehensive service

provision for all in urban and rural areas. Policy should

provide for context- based standards and regulations

of the provision of services based on size and

population but also proximity. Rural areas generally

have less population within a given area and thus less

density compared to urban areas. This can translate

into amenities such as health care and education

facilities being very far from the rural households,

impacting access, costs and characteristics of flows

across the urban-rural continuum.

Recommendation 7Set strategies and institutions to ensure coherent approaches to the provision of social services


Germany National Urban Development Policy, 2007, page 14

“…..strengthen small and medium-sized towns as business, social and cultural centers and to allow

them to function as hubs, supplying services for the public in the future.”

Bangladesh National Urban Policy; 2011, page 18

Small and medium-sized urban centers can be integrated with rural areas by providing transportation

facilities which will give rural people access to such higher level facilities as hospitals, higher

educational institutions, government offices, markets for rural products etc.



Box 16. PURA Scheme (provision of Urban Amenities in Rural Areas) India

India has devised a scheme for investing in urban amenities for rural livelihood opportunities in rural

areas to bridge the rural-urban divide, thereby reducing migration from rural to urban areas. The lack of

livelihood opportunities, modern amenities, and services necessary for decent living in rural areas results

in a sense of deprivation and dissatisfaction amongst a large percentage of population and leads to

migration of people to urban areas. This is primarily due to large differences in availability of physical and

social infrastructure in rural and urban areas. The PURA Scheme (Provision of Urban Amenities in Rural

Areas) envisages rapid growth of rural India -- given enhanced connectivity and infrastructure, the rural

population would be empowered and enabled to create opportunities and livelihoods for themselves on

a sustainable and growing basis.

Recommendation 8 Provide supporting infrastructure and other means to promote urban-rural connectivity.

Urban and rural areas have a symbiotic relationship;

they rely on each other for goods and services which

flow between the two areas. Rural areas are primarily

providing food, natural resources such as water,

environmental health benefits and labor among

other services to urban areas17 whereas the urban

areas provide services, information, innovation,

employment opportunities and other amenities18

. NUPs should seek to enhance this dynamic

17 http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-10_Urban-Rural-Linkages-2.0.pdf18 https://www.iied.org/rural-urban-linkages

relationship by providing infrastructure for the

movement of the products, services, information

and people at all scales of human settlement.

This infrastructure includes: transportation

for the movement of products and people,

information and communication technologies (ICT),

telecommunication and electrification infrastructure.

Projects for infrastructure development in urban and

rural areas through integrated urban and territorial

planning can help ensure that the resources required

are adequately allocated for implementation of

planning through policy.


From a rural perspective, infrastructural linkages

with urban areas promote rural productivity due to

the improved flows of information and expertise on

new methods or innovations, new crops, market

information, flows of farm inputs such as seeds,

nutrients, farm equipment, etc. Rural productivity

requires improved sustainable agricultural production

and agro-processing and creates job opportunities for

the rural households that can deter out-migration.

Transport infrastructure increases access to

employment in urban areas and increases mobility

between urban, peri-urban and rural areas.

Improved transport infrastructure also improves the

availability of goods in rural areas, enhances the

social connections between urban and rural, allows

farmers to get farm inputs and farm produce to and

from markets, etc. Box 17 is a representation of

countries that have included infrastructure in policy.

Urbanization impacts on the food and nutrition

security in many ways. Demand for food increases

and the food preferences are shifting towards

processed foods, dairy and animal products in

developing countries19. Food and nutrition security

is also affected by the fact that urbanization leads

to land use conversion of former agricultural land

or potentially farmable land to urban land uses.

It is worse for low income groups where people

19 Global Panel. 2017. Urban diets and nutrition: Trends, challenges and opportunities for policy action. Policy Brief No. 9. London, UK: Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition.

spend more than half of their income on food; this

is affecting middle-income households since food is

relatively expensive in urban areas in some developing

countries. Food safety is also compromised due to

unsafe urban and peri-urban agricultural practices

to meet the urban food demands20. The problem of

urbanization without adequate planning results in

inadequate services in food markets with risks of food

contamination especially in developing countries.

20 http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/national_urbanization_en.stm

Recommendation 9Promote food and nutrition security and public health in both urban and rural areas


Bangladesh National Urban Policy excerpt; 2011, page 18

Adequate investment in infrastructure, particularly transport, electricity and telecommunication networks for

linking urban and rural areas, will be ensured to improve rural productivity and provide better access to markets,

jobs and public services.

Philippines National Urban Policy extract, 2011; page 67

Recognize and enhance rural-urban linkages of poverty alleviation to improve labor mobility and increase the

sharing of market information among rural producers and urban consumers by:

• Increasing physical, telecommunication, and business linkages with rural areas.

• Expanding and intensifying internet connections with rural areas.

http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/national_urbanization_en.stm

http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/national_urbanization_en.stm



Inadequate planning may also result in lack of or

inadequate markets causing the residents to have

less physical access to food. Food and nutrition

security is a key factor to be considered and ought to

be addressed in NUPs, not just at the production level

but all the stages in the food system to ensure

sustainability of the future towns and urbanization.

Food nutrition varies from region to region; however,

NUP should promote healthy and nutritious

access to food in both urban and rural areas. This

could include sensitization through media on the

benefits of nutritious foods. The relevant agencies

should also be assigned the role of extension

and advisory services and investments

to smallholders (in the food system) for

sustainable, profitable and locally produced and

marketed nutritious foods. Rural farmers and

agencies supporting them should be introduced to

producing healthy and indigenous foods to supply

urban markets. Institutions such as hospitals and

schools among others could be utilized as a lever to

implement sustainable healthy diets with impact and

scale in urban-rural territories. Policy interventions

related to health impacts of highly processed low

nutrient density foods as a cost-effective strategy for

reduction of non-communicable diseases should be

instituted. NUPs should also adapt action frameworks

such as those developed by city networks, national

governments, UN agencies and other partners to

learn from and apply innovations to strengthen

urban and territorial food systems (for example

the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact), addressing the

importance of secure land tenure for rural and urban

small holders. Box 18 represents a few of the many

countries that address food in their policies; however

more on this subject can be found in the UN-Habitat

publication on Integrating Sustainable Food

systems and improved nutrition in National

Urban Policies.

Recommendation 10Devise ways of reducing the environmental impacts in the urban-rural convergences caused by

uncontrolled and unplanned urban developments

Urban areas are major consumers of the world’s

energy and the majority emissions of greenhouse

gases21 are from urban areas22.

21 UN Habitat; 2011, Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements22 https://unhabitat.org/urban-themes/energy/

High rates of urbanization require adequate planning

and capacities of urban planners which is not the case

in most developing countries. This results in spatial

inequality within and between urban and rural areas,

inadequate, unaffordable or inaccessible housing,

Pakistan vision 2025, 2014, page 65

Ensure that the entire supply-chain related to food security is geared towards provision of stable and affordable access to adequate, nutritious and safe food for a healthy life.


Nepal National Urban Development Strategy, 2015, page 30&40

Build incentives for preserving critical agricultural land; the policy discourages non-agricultural activities in fertile agricultural land.

https://unhabitat.org/urban-themes/energy/



Austria Spatial Development Concept excerpt, 2011, page 20

“… to examine spatial development measures in general as to their impact on the climate and adjust them if necessary.

Energy-saving settlement development should be promoted that contributes to the avoidance of motorized

individual passenger traffic and the adaptation to climate change (compact and functional mixed settlements, energy-

saving construction, areas for flood protection, flood retention and outflows, but also green areas and biotopes close

to residential areas to improve the local climate).”

traffic congestion, overpopulation, unplanned

developments, inefficient or inadequate urban

(basic) services, among many other challenges. These

all result in air, water, noise pollution which impact

the environment and the health of people negatively.

The results of these environmental impacts increases

the risk of natural disasters which mainly affect the

urban poor living in informal settlements and the

rural poor who live in informal settlements with

inadequate services provision. Inadequate urban

service provision such as water or waste management

contributes heavily to pollution of natural resources

as air, water and soil among others. In the continuum

of space this strongly impacts peri-urban and rural

areas including agricultural production. This means

that the environmental impacts of urbanization

cannot be ignored since they affect both the rural

and urban areas and should be incorporated in a

country’s NUP.

The NUPs need to clearly point out strategies for

conservation and sustainable use of natural resources

in especially the rural areas. This is supported by the

fact that urban areas depend on the natural resources

in rural areas for water, electricity, food, tourism

among others. Strengthening the use of systems

approach and circular economy frameworks23

to link and prioritize interventions that integrate

resilience to climate change, promote biodiversity

and protect ecosystems functions and natural

resources should be found in policy. Mitigation of

urban sprawl risks should be addressed in NUP also

to ensure that the negative impacts of sprawl can

be dealt with without causing disaster. Transparent

and exhaustive decision-making processes for

investments with social and environmental

impact for both urban and rural areas are key for

policy interventions. Some countries have addressed

the need for sustainable development to curb

negative environmental impacts and climate change

impacts in NUPs while enhancing adaptation and

mitigation mechanisms against natural disasters; See

Box 19. The policy incentives in the respective NUPs

should always be followed up with specific action

oriented interventions and activities.

23 Circular approaches and systems approach entails…………………………….

Rwanda National Urbanization Policy, 2015, page 39

“Mitigate the risks of urban sprawl, resources depletion and other negative environmental impacts at the urban

peripheries”



Recommendation 11Integrate approaches to disaster preparedness and management throughout the urban-rural continuum

Disasters result in displacement or destabilization of

communities. This requires policy to address how

these displaced persons, especially women and

children who are most affected, can be assisted.

Disasters can be either natural or man-made.

Both should be assessed and mitigated against to

promote preparedness and response to economic,

food security, environmental and communicable

diseases outbreaks and hazards in both urban and

rural areas. Uncontrolled urbanization is one of the

causes of either man-made or natural disasters. Man-

made disasters exacerbated by land use conflicts at

the urban periphery and natural disasters such as

flooding can be severely worsened by urban sprawl.

Land use conflicts emerge when urban land uses

activities begin to mushroom in peri urban land uses

and become incompatible with one another.

NUP should set mechanisms and participatory

approaches to reconcile differences between the

host and refugees/displaced persons’ interests in the

urban-rural continuum. This includes approaches for

integrating displaced persons through setting aside

land in urban and territorial planning and creating

collaborative reserve budget allocations between

local and national governments for such disaster-

related occurrences. These should be provided

for in policy. Collaborative urban-rural strategies

to mitigate or respond to crisis includes tools such

as 1) risk pooling and transfer instruments, 2)

leveraged cash transfers for refugees and host

communities in conflict resolutions, 3) food

security assessment and monitoring tools and

4) gender focused interventions among others

promoted in NUPs. There could also be strategies to

create opportunities of employment, education and

ensuring service delivery for new immigrants, See

Box 20. In cases where there exists specific policy

for conflict and disaster; the recommendation still

applies to ensuring action-oriented policy proposals.

The policy objective in Box 20 in the Philippines

NUDF, should be followed up with an action plan

for incentives and programs supporting new

immigrants. If this is well implemented, then the

conflicts between the host and the displaced persons

may be minimized. This is justified because the

cause of conflict from the increased burden on and

competition for resources may be minimized since

there exists a plan beforehand for the new migrants.

The National Policy for Disaster preparedness and Management; Uganda, 2010

The policy highlights 12 guiding principles for disaster prevention and management. The policy also

indicates the major disaster types in Uganda with policy actions and responsible institutions. For

example, for drought some policy actions include: i) Establish proper mechanisms for weather prediction,

Box 20. National Urban Policy Excerpt: Philippines National Urban Housing and Development Framework (NUDF); 2010, page 67

Encourage and give incentives to programs that assist in-migrants in terms of employment, education,

and service delivery opportunities.


early warning and drought information dissemination ii) Enforce implementation and compliance to

environmental regulations and laws. Iii) Integrate environmental conservation in national development

planning. Iv) Map zones for drought prone areas and agriculturally viable areas. V) Strengthen research

institutions for development of drought resistant crops and livestock. Vi) Prioritize programmes for small

scale irrigation/water for production. Other general strategies in policy include: effective use of media

and communication mechanisms, risk assessment, early warning, physical planning, integrating disaster

preparedness in schools and international cooperation, among others.



At the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs) is a commitment to leave no one behind.

From this lens the New Urban Agenda and the SDG

11.a.1 both promote the need for integrated urban

and territorial planning approaches to development,

leaving no space and no person behind. Other global

normative documents that stress the importance

of rural dimension of human settlements include:

Vancouver action plan for the 1976 Habitat Agenda,

Resolution HS/GC/17/10, Resolution HS/GC/24/3

and RIO+20 outcome document, The Future We

Want. Urban-rural interdependence has been

appreciated as a key component that needs to be

incorporated in policy, plans and strategies. National

Urban Policies were selected as the indicator for

the implementation of the New Urban Agenda

and the sustainable development goal 11.a.1. This

guide addresses the need to strengthen NUPs with a

specific focus on integrated territorial development.

This guide also seeks to implement the Urban-Rural

Guiding Principles (URL-GP) in specifically policy

frameworks for NUPs.

The guide suggests a methodology for application

depending on the phase of a given NUP process,

whether in the development process or in a completed

NUP document that is being implemented.

There is a checklist in the following section for

each NUP phase to help ensure that nothing is left

out in order to complete the NUP. After review of

a completed NUP document, the gaps should be

addressed by going back to the feasibility phase

of the NUP. This is clearly an iterative process for

incorporating URLs in NUPs. Importantly, the outcome

for the formulation phase should be referred to

during the implementation and monitoring and

evaluation phases as a specific URL-related policy

proposal and action plan.

The guide is comprised of 11 interrelated

recommendations that are based on the 11 sections

of the URL Framework for Action of the URL Guiding

Principles (URL-GP). The recommendations cover URL

fields of action which are: governance, legislation,

and capacity development, integrated planning

across the urban-rural continuum, investment and

finance for inclusive urban-rural development,

empower people and communities, knowledge

and data management for dynamic spatial flows,

territorial economic development and employment,

coherent approaches to social services and provision,

infrastructure and communications, integrated

approaches for food security, public health and

nutrition, environment impact and natural resource

and land management and conflict and disaster.

Conclusion


1. Allain-Dupré, D. (2011), “Multi-level Governance of Public Investment: Lessons from the

Crisis”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2011/05, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1787/5kg87n3bp6jb-en

2. Thomas Forster, Guido Santini, David Edwards, Katie Flanagan, Makiko Taguchi; November 2015,

Strengthening Urban Rural Linkages Through City Region Food Systems Paper for a joint UNCRD/ UN

Habitat issue of Regional Development Dialogue, Vol. 35 on “Urban-Rural Linkages in Support of the

New Urban Agenda.”

3. UN Habitat (2011), Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements.

4. United Nations Development Economic and Social Affairs (2018), World Urbanization Prospects

5. GIZ-NABARD Rural Financial Institutions Programme, Annual Report 2013/2014.

6. UN Habitat (2015), International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning; https://unhabitat.org/

books/international-guidelines-on-urban-and-territorial-planning/

7. Global Panel (2017), Urban diets and nutrition: Trends, challenges and opportunities for policy action.

Policy Brief No. 9. London, UK: Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition.

8. FAO (2017). The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges. Rome.

9. UN Habitat (2018). National urban policy; Feasibility Guide. United Nations Human Settlements

Programme, Nairobi.

10. UN Habitat (2015). National urban policy: A Guiding Framework; United Nations Human Settlements

Programme, Nairobi.

11. UN Habitat (2015). National urban policy: Evolution of NUP. United Nations Human Settlements

Programme, Nairobi.

12. UN Habitat (2017). Urban Rural Linkages: Implementing the New Urban Agenda by Strengthening

Urban-Rural Linkages. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi.

13. Urban Rural Linkages (2019). Guiding Principles and Framework of Action. United Nations Human

Settlements Programme, Nairobi.

References





National Urban Policy Resources

1. Bangladesh National Urban Policy, 2011

2. Philippines National Urban Housing and Development Framework, 2010

3. Austria Spatial Development Concept, 2011

4. Rwanda National Urbanization Policy, 2015

5. Bhutan National Urbanization Strategy, 2008

6. Serbia Spatial Plan, 2002

7. Uganda National Urban Policy, 2014

8. Germany National Urban Development Policy, 2007

9. Ethiopia Urban Development Policy, 2005

10. Elvasador plan Nacianal De Ordenamiento Y Desarrollo Territorial, 2001

11. Pakistan Vision 2025, 2014

12. Nepal National Urban Development Strategy, 2015

13. Japan National Spatial Strategy, 2015

14. Malaysia National Urban Policy, 2006

15. Ghana National Development Policy, 2012


Appendix 1: Checklist for Mainstreaming URL in NUP process

Phases of NUP Overall Checklist for NUP Process Score

Feasibility

phase

Have the key URL challenges and opportunities been defined for the region/country?

1.☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the key URL opportunities been defined for the region/country?


Have all the relevant stakeholders for the defined URL priorities been mapped


Have the roles of the stakeholders been defined?

1. 1.☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the existing urban related policies/strategies/frameworks been analyzed in the

context of URL challenges?

1.☐ No 2. ☐Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have policy gaps been identified?


Total Score /18

Appendices

Appendix one, two and three are comprised of rating

at a range of one to three; 1. No, 2. Partly 3. Yes.

The three responses are all towards contributing to

the scoring towards defining the level of compliance.

For example, the lower scores mean low levels of

compliance and vice versa. Therefore, the total score

will be out of the total number of questions multiplied

by the highest score (for example feasibility phase in

appendix one having six questions the maximum

score is 30). The user will select the responses

based on the extent to which the various activities

have been achieved. If nothing has been done the

selected responses will be 1. No, if there has been

progress but not completed the response will be

2. Partly and finally if the said activities have been

completed the response to be selected will be 3. Yes.

So for example feasibility phase has six questions; so

since the maximum score is three for each question,

the maximum score for feasibility phase is eighteen

(18). The higher the score the better the case as most

activities are already implemented.



Diagnostic

phase

Have preliminary research about the nature and extent (including causes and impacts)

of the URL challenges and opportunities been conducted?

URL challenges: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

URL Opportunities: 1.☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have data gaps if they exist been documented from the preliminary research?

URL challenges: 1.☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

URL opportunities: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has an analysis of the capacities of the decision makers (government officials) in URL

been defined?

Human -1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Financial -1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Technical -1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Institution -1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have capacity gaps been identified?





If data gaps exist; have field survey been planned for and conducted?

Planned: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Conducted: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has an analysis report on the URL challenges and opportunities been prepared?

URL challenges: 1.☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

URL opportunities: 1.☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has a Capacity development strategy (of the gaps identified) been defined?






Have alternative strategies/approaches on curbing these challenges and enhancing

the opportunities through policy been outlined (referring to recommendations in this

guide)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the cost-benefit analysis of these strategies/approaches been conducted?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total Score /66

Formulation

phase

Has a SWOT analysis of the alternative strategies/approaches been conducted?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the best approaches/strategies been identified?


Have the capacity needs for the best URL approaches been determined?

Human: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Financial: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Technical: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has a detailed policy action plan (including the financial and capacity needs strategy

and monitoring and evaluation framework) for the strategies been prepared (refer to

the guide)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Are the completed URL policy proposal and action plan available?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total Score /21



Implementation

phase

Has the action/implementation plan for the policy proposal been completed?


Has the implementation plan been approved by relevant stakeholders?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has the URL priority interventions/acupuncture projects been identified?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has the financial strategy for URL been taken up by the responsible persons/

institutions?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has the legal strategy been approved for URL policy proposal implementation?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the relevant stakeholder’s capacities been improved for URL policy proposal

execution?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the relevant stakeholders taken up their roles and responsibilities?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have feedback mechanisms for the URL proposal been developed to monitor the

challenges and improvements?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total Score /24

Monitoring

and Evaluation

phase of NUP

process

Have all policy options been taken up by the relevant stakeholders?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Are the relevant stakeholder’s able to execute the URL policy proposal from the

improved capacities?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Is the financial strategy effective for the implementation?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Is the legal strategy effective for URL policy proposal?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the timelines for the URL policy proposal been followed? If not what are the

challenges?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

How can the challenges for following the timelines be resolved?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has the mainstreamed policy enabled the implementation of the URL policy proposal

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total Score /21


Appendix 2: Checklist for incorporating NUP process pillarsParticipation Pillar URL Policy process

Stakeholders Been included in decision making process of the URL policy proposal?

Included the Rural constituent

How many? (where applicable)

Been included in the URL policy proposal execution?

Is yes indicate how?

Beneficiary

Financier

Implementer

Partner

Others specify

National

government

☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No

Sub-national

governments


Local governments ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No

Women ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No

Youth ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No

Civil society

organizations


Private sector ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No

Vulnerable

populations


Community

groups


Others specify…..

Capacity Development

Components to check Score

Have the human capacity needs on URL and implementation of the URL policy proposals of

the relevant stakeholders been identified

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has a human capacity development strategy been developed for the URL policy proposal?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes



Has a human capacity development strategy been implemented for the URL policy

proposal?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

If not implemented what are the issues/challenges?

What adjustments could be made?

Have the financial capacity needs for URL and the implementation of the URL policy

proposal been identified?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐Yes

Has a finance strategy been developed for the URL policy proposal?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has a finance strategy been implemented for the URL policy proposal?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

If not implemented what are the issues/challenges?

What adjustments could be made?

Have the institutional capacity needs for the implementation of the URL policy proposal of

the relevant stakeholders been identified?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has URL institution capacity enhancement strategy been developed for the URL policy

proposal?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

If not implemented have the issues/challenges been recognized?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the necessary adjustments due to the challenges been made?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /30

Acupuncture projects

Score

Have URL quick win projects/programs been identified?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the required financial resources been allocated?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes


Have the required human resources been allocated?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the required technical resources been allocated?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Is there a timeline of the implementation?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the set timelines been implemented?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

If no have the challenges been identified?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the identified challenges been addressed?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

If the projects have been implemented have the lessons learnt been documented?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total Score /27

Appendix 3: Checklist for reviewing URL in a final policy document

Recommendation 1: Encourage governance, legislation and capacity development

across the administrative boundaries

Scores

Has policy given directions for incorporating multi sectoral approaches in decision making

for territorial development?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy given directions for incorporating multilevel approaches in decision making for

territorial development?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy given directions for incorporating multi-stakeholder approaches in decision

making for territorial development?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy allowed for knowledge sharing and exchanged on process for strengthening URL

between urban and rural actors?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy allowed for knowledge sharing and exchanged on process for strengthening URL

between urban and rural communities?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes



Does policy also include strategies for rural development?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy emphasized on the integration of urban and territorial regions?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy promoted the increase capacity development of the actors in both urban and

rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy instituted the need for awareness raising and the capacity of the local planning

levels on URL?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score

/27

Recommendation 2: Advocate for integrated urban and territorial development

Has policy advocated for an integrated planning approach including urban, peri-urban and

rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy incentivized means to bridge the economic, social and environmental gaps

between urban and rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy developed structures/platforms/strategies 1for a dialogue between the different

planning levels (including regional)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy advocated for urban activities in rural areas and vice versa?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy considered decentralization of roles to the local authorities (empowering local

authorities to develop and implement their local policies or spatial plans or governance

structures in accordance with national level ones)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Are there mentions of strategies for planning across administrative boundaries and sectors

and approaches (at local level) (e.g. For land management; but also for service provision;

development of green and blue corridors or development corridors;)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /18


Recommendation 3: Promote inclusive finance and investment for development in

both urban and rural areas

Has policy emphasized on investments by the government sector by sector specifying for

the urban, peri-urban and rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy promoted payment of environmental services?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy promoted territorial public budgets?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Does policy advocate for investments for special economic zones (specialized cities)

including small and intermediate cities?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Does policy advocate for investments in infrastructure and amenities for small and

intermediate cities?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Does policy advocate for rural and urban population with access to electricity, improved

sanitation, improved water source (bridging the development gap)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Does policy have strategies for increased access to financial services for rural population?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /21

Recommendation 4: Empower people and communities in urban and rural areas

Are there strategies for economic growth across a region (urban-rural areas) in policies?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Are there Investments in urban-rural partnership projects (and governance structures) in

policies?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Does policy promote Regular dialogue, information sharing and coordination of rural and

urban development strategies?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Does policy promote close interaction between the rural and urban areas government

authorities?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /12



Recommendation 5: Provide structures for knowledge and data management for

spatial flows of people, products, services, resources and information

Has policy incentivized mechanisms to enhance the capacities of the governments to use,

collect and process spatially disaggregated data?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy promoted strategies to ensure data and knowledge of movement of people

across the urban-rural continuum is used in decision making by the relevant stakeholders?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Does policy mention use of GPS, GIS and other technology for data management?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have the nature and causes of migration been addressed?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have there been developed means of managing migration?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Are there investments in programs for economic and social inclusion of migrants?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Are there plans for data collection on migration to better project future needs for housing;

services; job creation?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /21

Recommendation 6: Guide on ways of ensuring territorial development and

employment including building the capacity of small and intermediate cities

Has policy instituted strategies to ensure development support for small and intermediate

towns?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy sought to ensure that the capacity of small and intermediate cities is enhanced?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have there been set aside strategies promote growth and development in small and

intermediate cities and clustering for competitiveness?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Is there a plan for more investment in small and intermediate cities?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes


Are there considerations for increasing human and institutional capacity in small and

intermediate?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy considered “system of cities2” approach)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /18

Recommendation 7: Set strategies and institutions to ensure coherent approaches

to social services provision

Has policy instituted for provision of health amenities in both urban and rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy instituted for provision of education amenities in both urban and rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy instituted for provision of recreational amenities in both urban and rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /9

Recommendation 8: Provide the support infrastructure and technology other

means to ensure there is connectivity.

Has policy provided for convenient spatial flows of goods and products between rural, peri-

urban and urban areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy provided for convenient spatial flows of people between rural, peri-urban and

urban areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy provided for convenient spatial flows of information between rural, peri-urban

and urban areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy provided for convenient spatial flows of services between rural, peri-urban and

urban areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy provided for adequate spatial distribution of Information Communication and

Technology connectivity?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes



Has policy provided for provision of infrastructure in both urban and rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /18

Recommendation 9: Promote food and nutrition security and public health in both

urban and rural areas

Policies emphasizes the role of food and nutrition in strengthening URL linkages?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Do policies/strategies include protection of agricultural land near the city, urban agriculture

zones and protection of natural resources (land, water, air)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Do policies include considerations on circular approaches3 for food including consideration

on reduction of food waste (from farm to fork) and recycling?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have vulnerable groups been included in policy for food and nutrition security?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have aspects of food safety and nutrition for both urban and rural areas been addressed in

policy?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has the informal food sector been captured in policy?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy mentioned markets links to food producers and consumers?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy mentioned need for well-being in all decisions for both urban and rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy focused on health of all in both urban and rural areas?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /27

Recommendation 10: Devise ways of reducing the environmental impacts in

the urban-rural convergences caused by uncontrolled and unplanned urban

developments

Has policy mentioned the need for environmental conservation?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy mentioned the need for natural resources protection?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes


Has policy mentioned the need for land management?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy supported circular economy frameworks?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Do policies include strategies for reduction of energy consumption or foster investment in

renewable energy production and use?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Are considerations included in policies for reduction for fostering non-motorized transport

means to reduce air pollution?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Do policies/strategies include waste and water management, protection of soil (across

administrative boundaries/at regional scale)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Do policies cover risk reduction for ecosystems and promote biodiversity?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Do policy promote conservation and sustainable use of natural resources?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy promoted systems approach and circular economy frameworks?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score /30

Recommendation 11: Counter impacts of the disasters throughout the urban-rural

continuum

Have means for supporting and resettling Internally Displaced Persons been incorporated in

policy?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have participatory approaches for reconciling differences on land at the urban-rural

continuum been captured in policy?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Is collaboration between the national and local levels of government in disaster captured in

policy?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Are there strategies for risk reduction (e.g. Flooding; land slides) that have been planned for

at regional level in policy?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes



Are there collaborative urban-rural strategies to mitigate or respond to crisis?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Have land use and land rights issues been captured in policy (to avoid conflict)?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy mentioned means to reduce disasters in rural, peri-urban and urban areas?

Rural areas: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Peri-urban areas: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Urban areas: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Small and intermediate cities: 1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Policies mentioned emergency preparedness in the urban-rural continuum?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy mentioned means to counter impacts of disasters in the urban-rural continuum?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Has policy promoted partnerships locally, nationally and internationally in countering

disasters?

1. ☐ No 2. ☐ Partly 3. ☐ Yes

Total score

/39


Appendix 4: Action Plans for Mainstreaming URL in NUP; (adapted from National Policy for Disaster preparedness and Management; Uganda, 2010)

URL Policy

recommendation

Policy objective Initiatives/

Activities

Timelines Indicators of success Implementing

bodies/persons

responsible

Leading organization

or person

Cost estimates Source of funding

1. counter impacts of

disasters throughout the

urban-rural continuum

1.1 Encourage and give

incentives to programs that

assist in-migrants in terms of

employment, education, and

service delivery opportunities.

(Ref Box 6)

Design training

programs for

immigrants for

employment

12 months 100 IDPs trained every

year

Department

of conflict and

disaster at the

ministry of disaster

and emergency

preparedness and

adaptation

Red cross

Ministry of disaster

and emergency

preparedness and

adaptation

USD 200,000 e.g. World bank

Government revenue

Develop a budget

to cater for

immigrants

12 months Set budget in the

national budget for

immigrants from

disaster

Develop amenities

for immigrants in

urban areas

24 months Amenities for

immigrants in the

urban areas

1. From the NUP-URL guide 1.1 1.1.1



Appendix 4: Action Plans for Mainstreaming URL in NUP; (adapted from National Policy for Disaster preparedness and Management; Uganda, 2010)

URL Policy

recommendation

Policy objective Initiatives/

Activities

Timelines Indicators of success Implementing

bodies/persons

responsible

Leading organization

or person

Cost estimates Source of funding

1. counter impacts of

disasters throughout the

urban-rural continuum

1.1 Encourage and give

incentives to programs that

assist in-migrants in terms of

employment, education, and

service delivery opportunities.

(Ref Box 6)

Design training

programs for

immigrants for

employment

12 months 100 IDPs trained every

year

Department

of conflict and

disaster at the

ministry of disaster

and emergency

preparedness and

adaptation

Red cross

Ministry of disaster

and emergency

preparedness and

adaptation

USD 200,000 e.g. World bank

Government revenue

Develop a budget

to cater for

immigrants

12 months Set budget in the

national budget for

immigrants from

disaster

Develop amenities

for immigrants in

urban areas

24 months Amenities for

immigrants in the

urban areas

1. From the NUP-URL guide 1.1 1.1.1


URBAN

RURAL

The accompanying publication on “Urban-Rural

Linkages: Guiding Principles and a Framework

for Action to Advance Integrated Territorial

Development” focuses on multi-level, multi-sector

and multistakeholder inclusion of both urban and

rural spaces, people and institutions in territorial

governance. A platform and tools to assist

governments and development partners have been

created to support work to strengthen URLs.

This Guide brings these parallel efforts together.

The first part provides the rationale and process

for bringing URLs into NUP formulation or revision,

recognizing the importance of URLs in relation to the

SDGs and the NUA. The ten URL Guiding Principles

(URL-GP) and Framework for Action (FfA) are

explained in this guide as a tool for mainstreaming

URL in national policy. The second part addresses how

to mainstream URLs in policy. NUP implementation

is comprised of five phases, namely feasibility,

diagnostic, formulation, implementation, monitoring

and evaluation. This guide provides suggestions

for strengthening URLs in each phase. A checklist

is provided in this guide to proceed through the

five NUP phases, but with a focus on URL in order

to arrive at the policy recommendations related

to URLs. The guide thus provides a framework for

assessing URL in each phase of NUP development

with tools for identifying challenges, opportunities,

priorities, stakeholder engagement, data gaps and

policy recommendations. The third part provides

recommendations for mainstreaming URL in policy

with reference to the URL-GP and eleven fields in

the Framework for Action, based on 15 national

and subnational experiences in different regions.

Tools are provided in appendices to assess the

level of incorporation of URLs in NUPs in each of

the four phases of policy formation, assess the

degree of stakeholder participation, and possible

recommendations based sections from the URL-GP

Framework for Action.

This guide provides a framework that can be revisited

when different challenges or opportunities arise in

different contexts. It is designed to be a reference

document for government officials, development

partners, civil society, the private sector, research

organizations and others.

Contact Us

Policy, Legislation and Governance Section

Urban Practices Branch

Global Solutions Division

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)

P.O.Box 30030, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya

[email protected]

www.unhabitat.org

Documents

MAINSTREAMING URBAN-RURAL LINKAGES in NATIONAL … · 2020-06-15 · This document will be a key instrument for the implementation of UN-Habitat’s Resolution HSP/HA.1/Res.5 on “Enhancing